Interesting info, wasn't expecting something like this to happen. I find this to be unnecesary and it's only real use is either to make it easier (which doesn't look like it) or because it'll be used somewhere in the future (like legendaries). I don't know...
I like the word Aura (.//hack comes into my mind), but using it as a magic subtype? Meh
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Marce »
clergy en-vec read the flavor text prior to looking at the picture...much worse then boros guildmage
______zyrakris's gemstone caverns thread \/\/\/
Quote from ElementalCreatureToken »
Quote from SqueektheWeek »
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Can somebody translate that please?
Quote from darkhammy »
Hang on, I need my gibber-to-english dictionary. Ah yes, here it is,
You know.. without out some sort of drastic change every now and again, the game will become more stagnant than it has been. How many times has Wizards introduced something drastically new since the game began? Of recent you have the Change of card face, addition of Equipment to the rules, and then the new Legendary Rule.. and now this.
I think it's a rather corny way to shake things up, but hey... this means we'll be seeing interesting like-reprints to accommodate this change.. and that I am excited about.
In fact, they could change red to Burgundy.. and it really wouldn't make a difference.
I think the change to Auras was made for two reasons.
1) to line them up with Equipments. Equipments are special artifacts that have extra rules text space taken up by an ability. Auras are special enchantments that have extra rules space taken up by an ability.
2) So that all Enchantments would read "Enchantment" on the type line.
I say we Raze and Pillage R&D for this incredibly stupid endeavor to simplify the game further. Completely unneeded. Although I have to wonder exactly how many noobs asked if an Enchant Creature or an Enchant Land is still an enchantment... I'm starting to wonder about the general intelligence of the world now too... o_O...
That's incredibly stupid. I think that Aruas are more complicated than simply saying "Enchant Creature" or "Enchant Island". So putting this already dumb idea into a set for new players is like handing a 3-year-old a calculus book.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Better to be without logic than without feeling
Thanks to Legacy 15 for the banner!
.(\ /).
.(¬.¬).
.( > < ).
It's wabbit season, you see. Can't be too cautious.
How is this change good at all? Anything that would normally reference an Aura can simply reference "local enchantments," and it's not as though they haven't specified what type of permanent it's enchanting in the past; look at the Genjus. Not to mention the sheer amount of errata going into this change... I don't like it one bit and I think it's extremely unintelligent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Certified Level 1 Judge
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
People, the only reason you think this is more complicated than Enchant Creature is because you've been playing Magic for awhile and you think of the way you understand things working as being simple -- because you know it. People seriously claimed that 6th Edition rules were less simple than 5th, too, just because they were used to the older way. This is a similar situation (albeit much lower key): you're presented with a change that doesn't work the way you're used to, so it seems more complex. That's normal, but it's not a good way to judge whether the change is a good idea.
Right now, Enchant Creatures have a few consistency problems:
* Other Enchantments say "Enchantment" (the name of their type) on them, while Enchant Creatures don't.
* Enchant Creatures have subtypes with rules meaning.
* There isn't a way to elegantly express a complex rule for what a card enchants.
* Local enchantments and equipment both connect with other permanents in an identical manner, but they don't use the same rules terminology for it.
This change fixes all four. Now all Enchantments say Enchantment on them. (You can say this is silly, but it's just like "Summon X" -> "Creature -- X" -- every little bit of consistency makes the game better in the long run.)
Enchantments no longer have subtypes with rules meaning. Some people
have said that Aura has rules meaning, but they're mistaken. Aura is like the subtype Equipment. Being "Artifact -- Equipment" doesn't do anything special; it's the presence of the Equip keyword that does that. Aura is similar -- being an Aura doesn't do anything, it's the presence of the "Enchant X" keyword in the text box.
Now all local enchantments, simple and complex, will use the textbox to define targets, so there won't be any inconsistency in that sense.
And now, enchantments and equipment will both use the word attach. This makes it easier to explain what they do (since they both essentially do the same thing) and also as a side effect makes Protection (which they included in this set) easier to explain -- it's now just "can't have an X card attached.")
Quote from VestDan »
Anyway, this is just another change like the 6th edition rules, the legend rule, the new card face, and humans that will piss people off in the short run, until they accept it and don't even notice that things work better.
VestDan's got it right. By the time the block after Ravnica's out people won't even remember this was a problem.
World enchantment is a supertype. Subtypes are not allowed rules definitions any more, only supertypes. Equipment and Auras only get special treatment now due to their rules text, what with the keywords they're granted.
I don't know quite what to think of it yet. It subtracts room from the text box, but it may be a step in making Enchant Creatures... excuse me, Aura's a better subset of cards. Only a handful of them are used seriously and almost never on a regular basis. Lately anyway. Rancor, of course, got around the card disadvantage with flying colors. Tallowisp works well for some enchantments in block. Standard hardly ever sees them anymore. Now there's actually more you could do with them without causing most people's brains to shut down under the stress. Equipment was relatively easy to understand, and was used very frequently, so I suppose they're applying it to enchantments in an attempt to make them better.
meh.. sure aura is flavourfully very good but come on.. this is just plain unnessery.. i can understand from the standpoint that cards that interact with local enchantments can be hard to understand for new players since local enchantments doesnt say local enchantment, but I still find it unnessesery.. :/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
What. The. Hell.
Changing types to Auras means this will change the rules text of not only previous Enchant Creatures, but will also mess with all sorts of cards like Piety Charm. The new cardface was acceptable because it fit with Mirrodin (and I somehow feel oldface would've looked worlds better on Kamigawa). Legend/Legendary was a necessary change given all the rules bull**** from Imagecrafters and the fact that supertypes can't be changed, period. Equipment is just adding a subtype and then making an ability called Equip that is only seen on equipment. Aura... Aura is ****ing over a quarter of Magic and adding a whole line of text.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Which color are you?
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project || Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project || Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
I thought they were trying to get rid of subtypes that have rules baggage on them...
I, personally, think this deal is really stupid and probably a bit more confusing for new players (I think a new player would grasp that a card enchants a creature easier if he saw "Enchant Creature" than if he saw "Enchantment - Aura", especially sitting next to other Enchantment subtypes). I also think this throws drafts of new sets for a loop with players who don't go after the spoilers in advance. It's not a tremendous deal and it's not like there's some major rules complication here... I just don't think the change was really necessary or good.
Rancor
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+0 and trample.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play return it to your hand
The Enchant Creature seems unneeded.
Rancor
Enchantment- Aura
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+0 and trample.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play return it to your hand
I've had a change of mind after the initial reaction. I still think it's completely unnecessary but it does open up a bit more design space and really won't mess with the current cards all THAT much. If someone says they can't tell what the Aura can enchant I'll be VERY afraid... but as for design space opening here's what I mean:
Llanowar's Power Enchantment - Aura Enchanted creature or land gains ":symtap:: Add to your mana pool."
Exactly how would that be possible under the previous archetype? So yeah...
Edit: As for cards like Piety Charm I think the necessary part to reword would go something like this:
I didn't read all 6 pages, so please a little consideration. Did anybody notice this? I wonder what they'll consider a Player's Aura. Worship? Any enchantment that, at the moment, says "You"?
That would leave normal enchantments to only be the most general or multiple targeting, like COP Red and Fervor. Thoughts?
I don't see the reason for the massive negative reaction... Enchant creatures as 'Enchantment - Aura' seem to work exactly se same as before. I can live with the extra text line in the text box, and if this change opens design space up for some other good local enchantments, all the better.
Edit:
As for Player Auras, well, they can be flavorfull, but do really nothing that couldn't be done with a global enchantment before.
White Global Enchantment - Cost
Enchantment
When this comes into play, choose target opponent.
If that opponent does something you don't approve of, gain X life.
vs
White Aura - Cost
Enchantment - Aura
When this comes into play, attach it to target oppoent
If that opponent does something you don't approve of, gain X life.
"You know that a conjurer gets no credit once he has explained his trick; and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all." - Sherlock Holmes
How is this change good at all? Anything that would normally reference an Aura can simply reference "local enchantments"
Yeah, and the words "Local Enchantment" are where on the card again?
People will ***** and moan, but soon they will get used to it and see that it actually works better (especially, like mentioned, because now they will read "Enchantment" on the type line). Has happened before, nothing new here.
Crimson: Remember, the Aura subtype does nothing. "Enchant" is now a keyword ability. So it has to say "Enchant creature or land", or "Enchant permanent".
An Aura with Enchant player would replace those that say "As ~ comes into play, choose a player". Now, you'll just enchant that player. It clears up some memory issues that those enchantments had.
So imagine a Phyrexian Arena variant with "Enchant player" and "At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, that player loses 2 life and draws 2 cards." You can use it to get cards, or use it on the opponent to hurt him.
Overall, the change feels a little wonky, but I really like it. The Enchant keyword does open lots of design space, and this makes everything very streamlined.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
But Defender opens the board up for new creature types to be useless except as blockers. Why should walls hoard all the glory?
Speaking of opening up board room. I'm almost positive this change will create new design space for WotC in some way shape or form.
An interesting note. By the time information (even early info) gets to us so that we can complain, WotC has already been working with it for nearly two years. It's always good to vent, but keep in mind such a drastic change couldn't be done over night (like the banning of cards can).
Again, as nobody seems to have picked up on it before, I'll point out that Local Enchantments were the only card type that involved TWO WORDS. And, as Supertypes and Types are not at all separated, this can create confusion. The only other card type that was two words was Enchant Worlds, which they fixed by making World a supertype. But you can't exactly make "Creature" a supertype for enchantments.
As for the term 'Local Enchantment,' this hasn't been seen on cards since, what, Visions? For whatever reason, WotC decided they didn't like it much.
This streamlining might make some cards slightly better. For Example, Tallowisp might fetch any "Aura that can enchant a creature," letting it get Enchant Permanents as well. Or maybe not. *shrug*
I would also like to point out that not only is this just another in the increasingly longer line of changes WotC has been making to the game since 6th edition (Card Face, Legend Rule, Defender, Humans, supertypes, color pie shuffling, etc), but if you look at the progression of the changes, they are becoming of diminishing overal importance to the game, and at this point the changes are as much aesthetic as streamlining. In other words, they have been systematically eliminating all the inherited weirdness that's been around since the beginning of the game but never made much sense, or rather, asking themselves "If we were designing this game today, without the past 12 years as baggage but with the information we've learned from them, how would we do things differently?" This is a gutsy thing to try to do, changing things under the players' feet, as we are, as a group, quite obviously terrified of change. But they've had the wherewithal to do it for the good of the game, and the game has steadily improved because of it (longitudinally, I don't want any "Kamigawa blows though!" rants coming out of this).
As for Rancored_Elf's 'return' gripe, my bigger problem with the rules are words with two meanings, which can lead to confustion. One is Counter, which is annoying but livable, but the other is Play, as putting something "into play" and "playing" something are easily confused actions and the difference between them can be difficult for even people who have been playing for some time to understand.
Here's 3 reasons for "Enchantment- Aura":
1.) To help new players understand that local enchantments are enchantments too.
2.) To allow players to be enchanted and have it make more sense
3.) For an elegant look
______zyrakris's gemstone caverns thread \/\/\/
I think it's a rather corny way to shake things up, but hey... this means we'll be seeing interesting like-reprints to accommodate this change.. and that I am excited about.
In fact, they could change red to Burgundy.. and it really wouldn't make a difference.
Webmaster and Owner of Magic Deck Vortex.
Check out my Magic article archive.
Trade with Me!
1) to line them up with Equipments. Equipments are special artifacts that have extra rules text space taken up by an ability. Auras are special enchantments that have extra rules space taken up by an ability.
2) So that all Enchantments would read "Enchantment" on the type line.
Thanks to Legacy 15 for the banner!
.(¬.¬).
.( > < ).
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
Right now, Enchant Creatures have a few consistency problems:
* Other Enchantments say "Enchantment" (the name of their type) on them, while Enchant Creatures don't.
* Enchant Creatures have subtypes with rules meaning.
* There isn't a way to elegantly express a complex rule for what a card enchants.
* Local enchantments and equipment both connect with other permanents in an identical manner, but they don't use the same rules terminology for it.
This change fixes all four. Now all Enchantments say Enchantment on them. (You can say this is silly, but it's just like "Summon X" -> "Creature -- X" -- every little bit of consistency makes the game better in the long run.)
Enchantments no longer have subtypes with rules meaning. Some people
have said that Aura has rules meaning, but they're mistaken. Aura is like the subtype Equipment. Being "Artifact -- Equipment" doesn't do anything special; it's the presence of the Equip keyword that does that. Aura is similar -- being an Aura doesn't do anything, it's the presence of the "Enchant X" keyword in the text box.
Now all local enchantments, simple and complex, will use the textbox to define targets, so there won't be any inconsistency in that sense.
And now, enchantments and equipment will both use the word attach. This makes it easier to explain what they do (since they both essentially do the same thing) and also as a side effect makes Protection (which they included in this set) easier to explain -- it's now just "can't have an X card attached.")
VestDan's got it right. By the time the block after Ravnica's out people won't even remember this was a problem.
I don't know quite what to think of it yet. It subtracts room from the text box, but it may be a step in making Enchant Creatures... excuse me, Aura's a better subset of cards. Only a handful of them are used seriously and almost never on a regular basis. Lately anyway. Rancor, of course, got around the card disadvantage with flying colors. Tallowisp works well for some enchantments in block. Standard hardly ever sees them anymore. Now there's actually more you could do with them without causing most people's brains to shut down under the stress. Equipment was relatively easy to understand, and was used very frequently, so I suppose they're applying it to enchantments in an attempt to make them better.
-Pharmalade.
Banner by Topher!
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
Changing types to Auras means this will change the rules text of not only previous Enchant Creatures, but will also mess with all sorts of cards like Piety Charm. The new cardface was acceptable because it fit with Mirrodin (and I somehow feel oldface would've looked worlds better on Kamigawa). Legend/Legendary was a necessary change given all the rules bull**** from Imagecrafters and the fact that supertypes can't be changed, period. Equipment is just adding a subtype and then making an ability called Equip that is only seen on equipment. Aura... Aura is ****ing over a quarter of Magic and adding a whole line of text.
Which color are you?
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project ||
Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
Which color are you?
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project ||
Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
I, personally, think this deal is really stupid and probably a bit more confusing for new players (I think a new player would grasp that a card enchants a creature easier if he saw "Enchant Creature" than if he saw "Enchantment - Aura", especially sitting next to other Enchantment subtypes). I also think this throws drafts of new sets for a loop with players who don't go after the spoilers in advance. It's not a tremendous deal and it's not like there's some major rules complication here... I just don't think the change was really necessary or good.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Rancor
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+0 and trample.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play return it to your hand
The Enchant Creature seems unneeded.
Rancor
Enchantment- Aura
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+0 and trample.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play return it to your hand
Makes more sense
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Don't use that word in a derogatory way please.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
Llanowar's Power
Enchantment - Aura
Enchanted creature or land gains ":symtap:: Add to your mana pool."
Exactly how would that be possible under the previous archetype? So yeah...
Edit: As for cards like Piety Charm I think the necessary part to reword would go something like this:
Destroy target Aura enchanting a creature.
Adds a few words but gets the job done.
I didn't read all 6 pages, so please a little consideration. Did anybody notice this? I wonder what they'll consider a Player's Aura. Worship? Any enchantment that, at the moment, says "You"?
That would leave normal enchantments to only be the most general or multiple targeting, like COP Red and Fervor. Thoughts?
Edit:
As for Player Auras, well, they can be flavorfull, but do really nothing that couldn't be done with a global enchantment before.
White Global Enchantment - Cost
Enchantment
When this comes into play, choose target opponent.
If that opponent does something you don't approve of, gain X life.
vs
White Aura - Cost
Enchantment - Aura
When this comes into play, attach it to target oppoent
If that opponent does something you don't approve of, gain X life.
People will ***** and moan, but soon they will get used to it and see that it actually works better (especially, like mentioned, because now they will read "Enchantment" on the type line). Has happened before, nothing new here.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
An Aura with Enchant player would replace those that say "As ~ comes into play, choose a player". Now, you'll just enchant that player. It clears up some memory issues that those enchantments had.
So imagine a Phyrexian Arena variant with "Enchant player" and "At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, that player loses 2 life and draws 2 cards." You can use it to get cards, or use it on the opponent to hurt him.
Overall, the change feels a little wonky, but I really like it. The Enchant keyword does open lots of design space, and this makes everything very streamlined.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Speaking of opening up board room. I'm almost positive this change will create new design space for WotC in some way shape or form.
An interesting note. By the time information (even early info) gets to us so that we can complain, WotC has already been working with it for nearly two years. It's always good to vent, but keep in mind such a drastic change couldn't be done over night (like the banning of cards can).
As for the term 'Local Enchantment,' this hasn't been seen on cards since, what, Visions? For whatever reason, WotC decided they didn't like it much.
This streamlining might make some cards slightly better. For Example, Tallowisp might fetch any "Aura that can enchant a creature," letting it get Enchant Permanents as well. Or maybe not. *shrug*
I would also like to point out that not only is this just another in the increasingly longer line of changes WotC has been making to the game since 6th edition (Card Face, Legend Rule, Defender, Humans, supertypes, color pie shuffling, etc), but if you look at the progression of the changes, they are becoming of diminishing overal importance to the game, and at this point the changes are as much aesthetic as streamlining. In other words, they have been systematically eliminating all the inherited weirdness that's been around since the beginning of the game but never made much sense, or rather, asking themselves "If we were designing this game today, without the past 12 years as baggage but with the information we've learned from them, how would we do things differently?" This is a gutsy thing to try to do, changing things under the players' feet, as we are, as a group, quite obviously terrified of change. But they've had the wherewithal to do it for the good of the game, and the game has steadily improved because of it (longitudinally, I don't want any "Kamigawa blows though!" rants coming out of this).
As for Rancored_Elf's 'return' gripe, my bigger problem with the rules are words with two meanings, which can lead to confustion. One is Counter, which is annoying but livable, but the other is Play, as putting something "into play" and "playing" something are easily confused actions and the difference between them can be difficult for even people who have been playing for some time to understand.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6